Comment: I don't understand half of what you just wrote

(See in situ)

I don't understand half of what you just wrote

(especially the idolatry part)
but I'll respond to this--

...and sure, human eyesight is definitely a PROVABLE product of random processes, and life evolved from non-living materials....yup, you got me...

human eyesight's one of the easier evolutionary movements to understand. the sequence of morphological changes between a flat light-detecting patch of flesh to one with a film to one with a film and a curvature, etc., isn't a difficult one at all. Eyes have been evolved convergently (unrelated lineage) 20+ times; an octopus' eyeball's design is much cleaner than that of a human (an orderly cluster of optic fibers compared to a tangle).

This wiki stock photo describes the evolution of the eye quite well:

If you really think this kind of variability is not possible within a species, keep in mind that there are cave fish who have devolved such that their eyes are behind a wall of skin and entirely atrophied. Look to the variability of dogs for an example of how this kind of variation is possible. This is how new species form.. God didn't just create all of these on day one.

Do you really think every species alive today has been here since the world's creation? Or that god is just continually plopping them down to earth on a whim? Those possibilities create more questions than they answer.

Finally, do you realize you just responded to a post talking about new discoveries recently possible through evolution.. by touting a book that's 12 years old?